Talk:Norrœna Society

Sourcing
Can anyone here quote the source for this?


 * The name Norrœna was derived from Norn, the name of an extinct Scandinavian language related to Old Norse that was once spoken within the North Atlantic Ocean including on the Shetland and Orkney Islands, off the north coast of mainland Scotland, and in Caithness.


 * Hugh Marwick . The Orkney Norn. (London: Oxford University Press, 1929).

Is Marwick even referring to the Norrœna Society here? Other works of the period use the word Norrœna in their titles.Considering Marwick's narrow interest in the Orkneys, evidenced in several books, this appears to be speculation on his part.

The Cleasby-Vigfusson Dictionary lists two defintions of the word Norrœna: as a noun meaning "the Norse tongue" and as a verb meaning "To render into Old Norse". In light of this, I find it highly unlikely that Anderson named his Society after an obscure extinct language of the Orkney islands. Anderson himself appears to utilize the word to refer to Anglo-Saxon and to Northern Europe literature as a whole. The defintion from the Cleasby-Vigfusson dictionary, therefore seems more applicable. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to delete that. Marwick's (quite reasonable) view was that Norn preserves a lot of Old Norse, but norrœn is simply the Old Norse for . . . Norse. As in norrœnt mál or norrœn tunga, the Old Norse tongue. (Cleasby-Vigfusson actually lists it under the later spelling, norræna, norrænn with the original œ spelling in parentheses.) The only possible source I can find for the misunderstanding is this from Magnus Olsen at the beginning of an article on Orkney Norse in the 1930 Maal og Minne . . . and all he's saying is that according to Marwick, Norn preserves Old Norse. Notice his wording in the first sentence Google threw up for me: at vårt gamle sprogs navn Norroena ennu er kjent på Orknøene, likesom på Shetland, i formen Norn "that the name of our ancient language, Norrœna, is still known in the Orkneys, as well as Shetland, in the form Norn." Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits
Thanks Yng. The edit(s) looks good overall. I was hesitant to delete the Marwick citation without some prior consensus. It just didn't look right. I've conducted research on the NS or really the Library off and on over the years, and wanted to run a few things by some of the other editors here before altering them. I've long been a fan of these works, having been exposed to them many years ago in college. I own a few of the volumes. It is an impressive series for its time. That said, I have a few concerns with the current revision. In my opinion, the header isn't accurate:


 * The Norrœna Society was a publication company which published 15 volumes of works dealing with Norse mythology, paganism, the sagas, and ancient Scandinavian history.

I've seen references to 15 volumes and 16 volumes. I'm not comfortable with just arbitrarily changing it to 15. The Works section lists 12 titles, and from firsthand experience I know that some of these are multi-volume works. FX: Saxo's History was published as two volumes, Rydberg's TM was done in 3 volumes, and Heimskringla was two-volumes, IIRC. That's at least four more volumes, bringing the total to 16. I also know there are sets published with embossed red leather covers and gilt edges, ones with green cloth covers and brown pages, and perhaps a blue cloth covered set. Anderson himself alludes to different quality runs. Each run was numbered. The LOC lists unnumbered volumes as well. It's entirely possible that some of the sets contained fewer volumes than others if a work was abridged or the typeface shrunk allowing a two volume work to be published as one, thereby reducing the overall cost of the set. I've also seen pub dates as early as 1905 and as late as 1908.

I don't like the wording of the header phrase in general either. I don't think Anderson was overly concerned with "paganism". None of the books "deal" with it, or for that matter "deal" with the sagas either. Most of them are straight translations of medieval works; one contains translations of both Eddas; only two are Icelandic sagas proper, a third is one of the Fornaldarsagas, two are histories (Danish, and Norwegian via Iceland), some contain folklore, others original works of scholarship. I'd like to take a stab at a better descriptor, unless anyone objects. Any suggestions? Also, how can we import pictures into the article? I've never done that before.

Within the BACKGROUND section of the article:


 * The Norrœna Society (not an actual society) was founded by Rasmus B. Anderson,

What's the source for the comment in parenthesis? What constitutes a Society exactly? While I haven't found any specific information on the NS, I haven't found anything stating it wasn't an actual Society either. Because the sources are apparently silent on this, doesn't mean there was no actual NS. Based on what I know of Anderson he was probably either unable or unwilling to fund such an expensive project himself. Evidence suggests that he was good at raising money; a group of donors could easily constitute a Society. It's also apparent that he didn't do the work on this alone (and according to one source perhaps not at all, merely acting as a figurehead). He's listed as the Editor-in-chief, and J.W. Buel is listed as the managing editor. No doubt other people were involved as well. It had to have been an expensive enterprise. Thus the comment looks like speculation. I don't see the point of it. In addition, web searches turn up numerous references to a modern Asatru organization by the same name. I would hazard a guess that search results for the Asatru organization outnumber the results for Anderson's NS. I see there has been some sniping about that on the Revision History page, but I don't see any discussion of it here. Can someone please fill me in on that before I step into a pile of sh*t?


 * In Old Norse, Norrœna means "Norse" or "Norwegian."[8] Anderson himself used the term to apply to both Anglo-Saxon and Northern European literature, according to faceplates in the Norrœna Library.

"Anglo-Saxon and Northern European" may be redundant. Any thoughts on that? Also, does anyone know what order these books were published in? I want to say that Rydberg's TM was volumes 3-5, and the Vinland sagas the last one (15 or 16?), but I haven't been able to immediately confirm that. Thanks, 97.100.143.191 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The order (of the Imperial collection edition anyways) is as follows:

Books 1-2. The nine books of the Danish history of Saxo Grammaticus. Books 3-5. Teutonic mythology. Book 6. The Volsunga saga. Books 7-9. The Heimskringla. Book 10. The story of Burnt Njal. Book 11. The Elder Edda of Saemund Sigfusson, and The Younger Edda of Snorre Sturleson. Book 12. Romances and epics of our northern ancestors: Norse, Celt and Teuton. Book 13. A collection of popular tales from the Norse and North German. Book 14. The Arthurian tales. Book 15. The Norse discovery of America. Norroena (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding this particular modern Asatru group going by the same name, their claim to fame is the publishing of The Asatru Edda (yes, you read that title correctly). They seem to be using Rydberg's theories as their foundation, and are using the Oera Linda Book as a primary source. Check out some of these reviews on Amazon: [ http://www.amazon.com/%C3%81satr%C3%BA-Edda-Sacred-Lore-North/dp/1440131783/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1293169499&sr=8-1 ]. bloodofox: (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bloodofox, we are all aware of your personal feelings about the newly re-established Norroena Society. However, doesn't the general public have a right to form their own opinion? Just a thought. Norroena (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Judging by those reviews, it looks like they're putting those opinions to use... bloodofox: (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well yes, I guess so, considering the reviews range from one extreme to the other. From what I've seen on the internet, this seems to be the general reception- you either love it or you hate it. I'm a teacher, so my opinion is that as long as it gets people reading and talking, in the end, that's the most important thing. Norroena (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly I don't know what Amazon reviews have to do with anything. The book is available. The group either exists or it doesn't. Clearly it does. Since the majority of results in a Google search for "Norroena Society" refer to this group, it should probably be mentioned here to avoid confusion. The group appears to widely accepted by other Asatru groups, being referenced on several sites. What are the objections to adding this as a secondary definition based on exactly? Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, do you have some involvement in this "Society"? Did it not come up on the Viktor Rydberg talk page at one point that you are one William P. Reaves, the same William P. Reaves who has contributed to an article to this new "Norroena Society"'s website ? From where I'm standing, it looks like we have an obscure internet group self-publishing some material (iUniverse) and looking to further capitalize on it by using not only the Norroena Society name, but now also looking to use this website to promote their commercial material. Now, you two are welcome to contribute to this article, but until the day comes that your specific group meets our referencing and notability requirements, links to this modern group you've created will have to stay off of the article. bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that a question or an accusation? A google search demonstrates the essay in question appears on a number of websites and in print. This is hardly a criteria for falsely identifying me as its author. I have no interest in promoting an essay widely available on the internet. I have not created any modern group, nor have I been identified as Bill Reaves. You might want to check Wikipedia's policy on Anonymity while you're at it. The claim you cite was made by an editor attempting to delete references to Mr. Reaves's translations from the Rydberg entry as I recall. The moderators ultimately ruled the translations admissible. The same editor attempted to insert his own internet-published essays in their place. One moderator described them as reading "like a joke", if I recall the situation correctly. They were ultimately disqualified as COI. The accusation was hardly credible. Check the facts. If you reread the revision history there, you'll see that many of the same editor's citations were deleted or revised as inaccurate or misrepresentive of the text. As a result of his involvement the entry was ballooned with exact quotes, because any rewordings were routinely challenged. I don't care to re-hash the issue. This kind of open hostility is precisely why I generally eschew involvement with Wikipedia. Are you a moderator here? If you care to check my record, I have edited various Wikipedia articles on the subject of Norse mythology. I am not affiliated with any particular Asatru organization. As for referencing and notability requirements, I can point out several Wikipedia entries of Asatru organizations with no more than references to other Asatru organizations and publications. What standards are you specifically referring to? Please provide a link. Are these standards applied evenly to all entries involving pagan organizations or do moderators get to pick and chose which rules apply to whom and when based on their own affiliations and biases? From where I am standing, that appears to be the case. My interest in mentioning the modern Norroena Society is as stated. A search for the name turns up more instances of the Asatru group than the historical publishing venture. No doubt this will confuse some readers, and may even lend the modern incarnation undeserved credibility. Based on the rate of results on Google, I seriously doubt the group needs Wikipedia's help to promote itself. It looks like they are doing a good job on their own.Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Curious, as you are repeatedly accused of being this very individual all over this talk page: Talk:Viktor_Rydberg/Archive_2. I bring this up solely because this identification has obvious influence on how your opinion on the matter, and you have not been "outed"; it's all over that talk page. Now, you may or may not recall that I was also involved on that article, in fact agreeing with a many of your points, and I have noticed you editing around Wikipedia (as well as . I am not an administrator. The same policies apply to us all, and the issues to linking to this modern group's site have been listed in detail at 's talk page here. bloodofox: (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the now 3 year old discussion. As stated above the Discussion page reflects that all of these accusations were made by one editor, who was ultimately ruled to have a COI. Saying a thing over and over doesn't make it true. You have indicated your opinion of Rydberg on the revision page. Is that not biased? I have thoroughly examined the NS site, and fail to see what you see. Rydberg's work isn't even posted there. See the Library section. It would be child's play to import the work from another site. It's all over the web. They haven't even done that. This article isn't about Rydberg. Numerous scholarly sites and publications reference his work. Do you suggest we ban all mention of them here, simply because you categorize Asatru groups who do the same as "Rydberg worshippers"? Check out my most recent edit. I have inserted the relevent information in a neutral way, as well as incorporated input from other editors here. Based on my examination of several Asatru-related entries on Wikipedia, I believe no standards have been violated. Few entries for Asatru organizations contain any academinc references, and some merely one. The most common academic entry is a book by Jenny Blain, a professed heathen scholar, and/or books on White Supremecy who mention these groups in passing, often in a negative light. If a moderator would like to know which entries, I'll be happy to supply them. By the standards applied here, Asatru itself would be wiped off Wikipedia. In the meantime, I have spent the better part of the day researching the content of this entry and developing a revision. I'd prefer to engage in constructive conversation regarding it rather than fending off personal attacks. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your dancing around whether or not you are this individual involved with this organization is doing you no favors. No "ultimate" "ruling" occurred on that article, it just sort of ran out of steam. Now if someone got banned somewhere over it, that I would also be interested in knowing. As for this group, they're quite based in Rydbergian theory, as their site hints at and their The Asatru Edda makes most obvious. Inconsequential to this article, Rydberg's theories on Germanic mythology have long been rejected in academic philological circles, and see no currency outside of little internet groups like these. That's a simple fact.


 * As for those other articles, Wikipedia has plenty of poor articles floating around, and many of those "Asatru-related entries" that you mention may well deserve the knife. We are, however, talking about this article and how it relates to Wikipedia policy, and I will thank you to remain on topic. bloodofox: (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work, Jack. I don't think the Rydberg issue is relevant here (and I was there for a small part of that fracas and do not want to see anything like that again.) I've tightened up the lead and put the NAHA reference in the first following paragraph - what is the work that is excerpted from? In a quick look at the site, I didn't see it stated. I agree with Bloodofox's removal of the reference to the modern Norrœna because no evidence of its notability has been provided. As I've said to User:Norroena, it's a matter of providing a couple of solid academic mentions. Whether modern heathen organizations are covered here is not really germane -- the historical Norrœna was not heathen, and was in any case a publishing venture not a religious organization. But whether we like it or not, the standard applied on Wikipedia as of a few years ago is notability, not existence or intrinsic interest. IMO modern heathen organizations for the most part don't have articles on Wikipedia for precisely that reason, and that also produces the referencing to Jenny Blain (who has academic cred) as well as to Gardell's self-admittedly poor survey.  None of which bears on this article, however. So other than the disagreement we evidently have over the modern Norrœna Society, what do you think of my modifications? I'd like to tighten it up a bit more in the middle. What do you think? And it would be great to get a solid reference supporting the influence the books had. Can anyone find one? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yng, I'm good with the edits to the content portions. The undue focus on the lede line leaves a lot to be desired however. I plan to add additional references as I have time. I wanted to get the gist of my findings up so others can start working on it. Obviously it's going to need a lot of revision. Consider it a rough draft. What I like about Wikip is the collaborative effort. What I hate about Wikip is the petty sniping. Bloodofox's style leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've always wanted to delve deeper into the NS work, since I cut my teeth on it. It's an impressive set. Googlebooks makes that so much easier these days. i learned a lot today, and am still piecing things together. I had a couple of days off and it captured my interest. I was engaged in research, and encountered the entry. I've said my piece about the Asatru NS society. I'm disappointed that both of you immediately deleted reference to it without discussion.I'm not pushing to give it its own entry, so I don't see the issue. I think its a mistake not to mention it simply because it crops up in web-searches as the first several results. Obviously Mark Puryear's books are influential even if journalists and academia haven't recognized it as yet. I understand the point about advertising, but that's hardly the case here. I added the reference in a limited neutral way simply to reflect the reality of the situation. I fully expected it to be edited, but both of you immediately deleted it offhand. Such reactions stifle participation. BF's snipes were unwarranted both to myself and Norroena. I am reminded why I participate so little here. No doubt you lose a lot of worthwhile participants this way. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs in the lede no matter what, but at the end as a coda. But I think you need to look at the recent history of the article; User:Norroena, who is new to Wikipedia, has tried to add it a few times and the last time I cut it down to a short, neutral statement, so if reliable sources can be found, that wording is there as an example of what I would consider appropriate for it. But you should know that Google hits are not a reliable guide to notability. For one thing, their algorithms tailor them to your personal search history. For another, Wikipedia defines notability in terms of coverage by what it defines as reputable sources. Academia - or a reputable newspaper - and more than a passing mention (for example, naming Norrœna as the publisher of a particular book is not enough; the cite has to say something substantial about Norrœna). As I said to the user, find 2 such sources and I will agree with you, it should be mentioned here. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, while I stand by my previous comments, I agree with Yngvadottir here, and fulfilling those conditions will also get you an agreement from me. bloodofox: (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

EDITIONS

 * The order (of the Imperial collection edition anyways) is as follows

This is helpful Norroena. Thank you. I'm off today. I'm going to research this further and get back with you on this with my findings. I'd like to clear up the 15 or 16 volume question. I suspect both may be right depending on the edition. So far I am aware of a Royal edition labeled as "printed for members" which indicates the existence of a Society, the Imperial edition that you mentioned, and a Viking edition (without the members blurb). There may be more.Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry everybody; I saw this before I had to dash to work, so could not respond until I returned.


 * Number of volumes - based on OCLC. I was trying to make sure the list of works was complete; I'm not sure whether there were 2 books on the Norse discovery of America, but there are 2 titles, and I still could not get 16 books, so looking at details for specific listings I found the same info as Norroena gives. For example Imperial Edition, a London edition, Royal Edition, just says 15 volumes, a New York edition, just says 15 volumes. That's why I changed it from 16 works to 15 volumes.


 * The "not a society" reflected the sources in the most NPOV way I could manage. Hustvedt's biography of Anderson devotes a huge amount of space to his activities in - and against - various societies, but mentions Norrœna only a couple of times in passing, specifically because as a society, it was a false front: "In order to add impressiveness to the set, a fictitious society was created as sponsor, and on each title page appeared the name Norroena Society". Wawn snarks for a page or so, calling Norrœna "a hollow invention" and a "flag of convenience" and talking about "recycled translations" and "lavish but inert recycling". He doesn't like the pictures - "artworks of arguably greater distinction and assuredly less relevance", etc. It begins here and should all be viewable except the pic. Maybe Wawn is piqued because the Norrœna editions were out of the U.S. He contrasts the Morris-Magnússon translations, which don't appear to have sold as well. But that was why I inserted that parenthetical statement.


 * Statement in the lede - I agree, that needs some adjustment. In addition to the issues you raise, 97.100.143.191, there isn't actually any Anglo-Saxon literature or history in the set, just the Arthurian tales - which are not covered by the lede. He labelled it "Anglo-Saxon" for marketing reasons. I may have a stab at rewriting the lede, since the different sets do seem to have had the same 15 volumes. Or someone else, have at. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. I'll reread and consider your recent comments as I get time. I'm currently researching the editions on Googlebooks and finding anomolies I want to verify before posting. I'm not a fan of arbitrarily editing the article without fact-checking it. It looks like Heimskringla was printed as two or three volumes depending on the edition. I have now found at least 5 different editions and two variant covers for one of them. Your post above mentions more I haven't encountered yet. So I believe the set probably included 15 or 16 volumes depending on the edition. In regard to the society's existence, some editions include the "For members" frontispiece, others do not. I suspect the members are donors, but cannot confirm that. I'll also read the Wawn passage you pointed out. I own the book. The tone indicates a possible bias or perhaps just shoddy research. Does he source it? I'll report my findings here when I get more complete information. I have run into a couple of other anomolies I want to research further. The order of the volumes may not be consistent across editions. Googlebooks is terribly inconsistent in their cataloging methods, and the existence of a modern Norroena Society also publishing books complicates the search, so this may take some time. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edit Yng. I've revised it a bit to clarify the impression left by Wawn's quote that an edition of Mallet's work exists as a NS volume. It doesn't. NS only reprinted that portion of the work containing I.A. Blackwell's translation of the Snorra Edda. Mallet's work is much broader in scope. See the revised 1847 edition here Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Norroena Society has been reawoken as a nonprofit organization out of Oregon. Continuing with the original work and also progressing with new ideas and goals. We would like to request to update the page with information regarding the Societys history. Today the society is working for the 501c3 status as an educational organization. Ran by director Mark Puryear the society Incorporated in 2018 making it a legal organiztion. Kylewithnorroena (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Editions of the Norreona Library
After several hours research what has become clear: The volumes were not numbered within the books themselves or on the spines. I see no evidence of this online or in the books I own. The number of volumes and perhaps even the order of the volumes varied by edition. There are numerous indications of this. I have found references to an 8 volume set, a 15 volume set and a 16 volume set so far. Editions I have seen firsthand include the Royal edition, the Memorial edition, an Editor's Autograph Edition, a Vinland Edition, and the most common— the Viking edition, which has two versions, a plain green cloth cover and a more expensive royal blue cover with black trim and gold stitching, embossed with a royal seal. In addition I found reference to a Saxo edition. On this page, Norreona mentioned an Imperial edition, and Yng mentioned a London edition and a New York edition. I haven’t seen those yet. There may be others as well. Scans on Googlebooks give different volume numbers for the green cloth printing of the Viking edition than Norroena provided for the Imperial edition, so I suspect the sets were packaged differently, and thus catalogued differently depending on the libraries who held them. I have seen full sets for sale as well. I can source references to an 8 volume set, a 15 volume set and a 16 volume set, so I would prefer the entry reflect that. Perhaps leftovers or returns were repackaged and sold as smaller sets. Each edition had different print runs (variously 100, 450 and 600 copies, etc according to their inside pages). The more expensive looking ones, where the original cover is still intact (i.e. not rebound by the holding library) have the Anglo-Saxon classics frontispiece that says "Privately printed for members" the remainder have the less elaborate Norroena frontispiece without the member blurb. The A-S Classics versions appear to be of higher quality, and their runs more limited, perhaps indicating that Society "members" were donors or high-end buyers. We’ve already seen there was a large range of prices between sets, which supports that. All versions leave a space for the addition of hand-printed numbers, after stating how many each run contained. One set held by Stanford university is not numbered. The line is left blank on all editions. The Library of Congress also holds an unnumbered set according to one reference I found. I plan to start editing the article with the evidence I have found.

As for Wawn’s snarking, I have encountered similar comments by British authors, primarily complaining of the set consisting of cheap reprints. Their opinions aside, I would simply note that these sets probably did more to introduce the American and English-speaking world to Icelandic literature than any other due to their affordability and availability. As for their less than favorable opinions of Anderson, though the man is largely forgotten, these sets remain. They are arguably his most enduring effort. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted before, I have found a couple of bibliographic references to an 8 volume set. Rereading Wawn's text tonight, I thought I had tracked it down. I just added this, but I see a problem with it upon reflection:

"8.^ The most informative reference to the eight volume set is by Andrew Wawn, who writes (The Vikings and the Victorians, p. 161), "Eight volumes were duly published in a limited edition including Oliver Elton's Saxo Grammaticus translation, Benjamin Thorpe's 1866 Edda, Thomas Percy's Northern Antiquities in the revised 1847 edition, Laing's Heimskringla, and two volumes by George Dasant—Popular tales from the Norse, and Burnt Njal."

I cannot find a Norreona version of Mallet's (French) or Percy's work. I supect that Wawn probably means the Prose Edda translated by I.A. Blackwell, inserted into the 1847 edition of Mallet's Northern Antiquities otherwise in the Percy translation. It's probable because later editions of NS contain the Blackwell translation, published together with the Thorpe translation of the Elder Edda in one volume. Blackwell replaced Percy's translation in the 1847 edition because:

"It was our intention to have merely revised the translation of the "Prose Edda" given in Bishop Percy's edition of M. Mallet's Work, but, on comparing it with the Old Norse text, we found that a number of important passages had been omitted, and others rendered not only quite contrary to the spirit, but also to the sense of the original In fact this could not be otherwise, for Mallet appears to have made his translation from the erroneous Latin version published by Resenius in the year 1665, and Bishop Percy expressly states that he merely turned Mallet's French translation into English, occasionally consulting Goranson's Latin version, which is not much better than that of Resenius. Under these untoward circumstances, it is a wonder that the English translation was not more incorrect than we found it to be. We have, however, naturally been obliged to subject it to a, thorough revision, in net, to retranslate the work."

Wawn is obviously aware of this as he notes it in a footnote on page 317. So I think the passage on p. 161 is an error. Yng, would you mind taking a stab at noting this? Perhaps we could just lose the Wawn quote altogether, but the 8 volume set is otherwise unsourced. The other references I found to it are simple bibliographic references and just say 8 volumes, without listing the titles. I think Wawn is right here for the most part with the exception that he meant to say Blackwell's retranslation of excerpts of the Prose Edda which replaced those of Percy in the 1847 edition of Percy's translation of Mallet's Northern Antiquities. Not sure how to handle this one. I'd prefer someone else give it a shot. If you do, please change the Thorpe text pub date to 1866. I put in 1966 by mistake. I need to get to bed. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the suggested edit Yng. I've revised it a bit to clarify the impression left by Wawn's quote that an edition of Mallet's Northern Antiquites exists as a NS volume. It doesn't. NS only reprinted that portion of the work containing I.A. Blackwell's translation of the Snorra Edda, which they repackaged with Thorpe's 2-volume translation of the Poetic Edda (1865: Mythological Poems; 1866 Heroic Poems) into a single NS volume in all known references and examples. Mallet's work is much broader in scope. See the revised 1847 edition here

I've now had time to analyze the data I gathered. Anderson himself refers to "ten different historical bindings." This probably indicates a total of 10 editions. So far, I have found references to nine named editions, which I can confirm. These all contain 15 volumes. The initial 8 volume set Wawn describes, and which I have found other academic references to, may be the 10th "binding"/edition. It may not have had an edition name. If so, I have seen no verifiable examples of it that I am aware of. If the texts Wawn mentions were reprinted in the same number of volumes as later NS editions (and I suspect they were: why re-edit and re-typeset existing volumes at the cost of additional time and expense?), the introductory set he describes would total eight volumes altogether. The remaining 7 volumes were probably added to the initial collection of 8 for a total of 15 volumes and sold widely in limited sets, accounting for all known versions I have listed. Subsequently the odd volume with the cover title "PreColumbian Treasures 1000-1492" was published, making a 16th. It has a similar title page saying published ny the NS, but no NS frontispiece like the previous 15 volumes. This would account for the references to the 8 volume set, the 15 volume set, and the 16 volume set, I encountered in various publications and library listings. I also found a couple of references to sets with fewer volumes than 15, such as a 13 set, but these came solely from listings on antique bookseller sites, and thus most likely indicate sets being re-sold on the aftermarket with missing volumes. Since the individual volumes have no inner markings indicating their volume number within the set, a bookseller who obtained an incomplete set either doesn't know the set is incomplete or hopes his buyers won't. While I cannot independently confirm it, this conclusion fits all of the (considerable amount of) evidence I have gathered so far. I'm happy if you want to go with this conclusion in the article until either more evidence surfaces contradicting it, or it can be independently verified. Your choice. To clarify: The academic references I have gathered only list an 8 volume, a 15 volume (the most common) and a 16 volume set. Nothing I have found to date lists all [ten?] editions. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources
From what I can see, Andrew Wawn, author of the Vikings and the Victorians, merely repeats the opinions of Lloyd Hustvedt published in his book Rasmus Bjørn Anderson, Pioneer Scholar (1966). It appears to be his only source for the statements cited here. And strangely, although Wawn describes the early 8 volume set of the Norreona Library (incorrectly, I might add— leaving the impression that Mallet's Northern Antiquities was one of the volumes), he never mentions the more common 15 volume set. Wawn's grasp of the subject is therefore questionable. He seems unduly influenced by Husvedt's opinion of Anderson, which is largely unfavorable. I have ordered a copy of Hustvedt's book, hoping to get to the bottom of this. From the excerpts online, none of his statements appear to be sourced. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I ordered a copy of the Hustvedt book on Rasmus B. Anderson and have since read it. The book takes an unfavorable view of Anderson overall, often undermining his work and attacking his personal character. It is poorly sourced. The book contains a small 2 page account of Anderson's involvement with the original Norroena Society which is demonstrably riddled with errors (for example, he lists Rydberg's Teutonic Mythology as Volumes 3-8 of the Norroena Library). The source of the history of the Norroena Society, as related by Hustvedt, is a private conversation between Anderson and another scholar, who (coincidentally) is listed as a co-publisher of the book. In effect, it's heresay. The attitude expressed therein thus probably reflects that scholar's personal feelings toward Anderson. To support his tale, Hustvedt provides transcripts of two telegraphs, neither of which verify the substance, but serve to promote a negative view of Anderson. One is from a congressman expressing displeasure that the set consists of previously printed material, and the other is from Teddy Roosevelt, quoted in the present revision of the entry. Hustvedt mentions further correspondence from President Roosevelt, which he attempts to spin in a negative light— but read objectively doesn't appear to be at all. After reading this book, it's apparent that Wawn simply repeated information regarding Anderson from this text (which he frequently cites as his source) mixing it with facts he apparently obtained elsewhere. For example, neither mention the most common 15 volume set of the Norreona Library. Whereas Hustvedt speaks of the 16 volume Norroena Library (attributing 5 of the volumes to Viktor Rydberg!), Wawn refers to an 8 volume set leaving the impression that Mallet's Northern Antiquites forms one of them. Wawn makes no attempt to explain the obvious descrepancy. From his description of it, I suspect Wawn had independent access to or knowledge of the 8 volume set, and either ignored or overlooked Hustvedt's reference to a 16 volume set. Sorry to say, but neither of these texts inspires confidence that their authors know much about the subject. And since Wawn frequently cites Hustvedt as his source, I am not inclined to accept either in the face of the imperical evidence which I've gathered on the subject to date. The verifiable evidence from known editions, and contemporary journals and other documents, contradicts both authors on several points, so I would recommend that the evidence be placed beside their statements when these are contradicted by the known facts, if used at all. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Norrœna Society
Is the organization known as the Norrœna Society today, the same as the publishing firm from the early 20th century, or not. See http://www.norroena.org/ for the modern society. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Their own statement is: "Even though The Norroena Society was originally a fictional organization invented by Rasmus Anderson to promote the Norroena Library he had collected, it is in honor of his vision that we continue its name. His goal was to educate people on the culture, history and religion of ancient Northern Europe with a collection of some of the best works on the subject. As an actual society, we aim to continue this legacy by developing various projects that will hopefully shed new light on our sacred heritage." Also see above, posts from December 2010. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

ten different historical bindings - meaning
"I've now had time to analyze the data I gathered. Anderson himself refers to "ten different historical bindings."


 * A note on this. This comment about historical bindings by Anderson may not be referring to different editions, but rather to different covers for the books. Within the 15 volumes, there are ten different cover designs (or bindings). The other volumes repeat covers. The gilt cover designs of the books actually replicate the "historical" bindings of famous books from the past held in museums. For example, the cover of volume 13 is derived from a birthday book presented to Charles II of England. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Saxo Edition
I dont think this set ever existed. The only reference to it is in Halldor Hermannsson's Icelandic Saga biography. The term "Saxo Edition" would typically be associated with versions of the Saxo Grammaticus. I've seen firsthand examples of every other edition listed with the exception of the claimed American Limited Edition. 184.21.186.73 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Saxo Edition does exist, though it is properly called the "Special Saxo Edition," and was limited to 50 copies. I uploaded a picture of the edition page from one of my volumes to Imgur if anyone requires proof. Æthelwulf Cyning (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Being a new user, I tried to correct the error as unobtrusively as possible on the article page, but the Special Saxo Edition likely no longer requires its own separate subheading from the other editions since the Special Saxo Edition's existence is no longer in doubt. Æthelwulf Cyning (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The claims about an eight-volume set
I don't think an eight volume set ever existed. The only source for it is "The Vikings and the Victorians: Inventing the Old North in Nineteenth-Century Britain." by Wawn. Wawn doesn't site any source for it. I looked at those sources he does cite and none of them make the claim either. Strongly against his claims is the fact that he makes mistakes in terms of listing volumes in the set. He lists books that were never published by the Norroena Society and gets many details wrong. If this was a contemporary source from the early 1900s, the claim of an eight volume set might have more weight. But this is a modern book from the 2000s and the eight-volume set claim just looks like sloppy research. 184.21.186.73 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Source for the "imperial autograph edition"
I found a copy in google books:. Its at the University of California Berkeley. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Questioning the Society's existence
Proposition: The Society never existed as an organisation of members. It was rather a publishing venture that pretended to have a society of members as a marketing ploy. A similar example is the Casanova Society imprint. It was common enough in the first decades of the 20th century for finely produced reprint series such as the Norrœna Library to have a "Society" imprint, adding to its respectability.

An authoritative source states: "Professor Anderson himself has told me that he was approached by a publisher in St Louis, who made a practice of putting out reprints of famous books in expensive editions ... In order to add impressiveness to the set a fictitious society was created ... The Norroena society, claiming to have offices in London, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Berlin, and New York" (p. 258).

Einar I. Haugen, "A Critique and a Bibliography of the Writings of Rasmus B. Anderson", The Wisconsin Magazine of History, vol. 20, no. 3, March 1937, pp. 255-269. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4631124

In support of the Society's existence, the Wiki article currently cites a biased piece of contemporary marketing for the Norroena Library from the Kentucky Historical Society. "These books are the rarest histories in the world ... In scope it has been likened to the Holy Bible for there is no other work in the world that has such a scope of this work outside of the Scriptures". What ridiculous embellishment.

The Kentucky Historical Society claims that the Norroena Society was founded by Oscar II and that there are 30,000 members of the Society in Britain alone. If either of these huge claims were true, there would be far more sources backing them than a single gushing review from a historical society based in Kentucky. The involvement of a figure like Oscar II would be all over the historical record if true.

The membership certificates that have been seen in Norroena Library volumes is by no means evidence. They are just another marketing ploy for the series, a publisher's way of making their customers feel special after paying up a large sum for a pretty set. You don't "become a member" of any body by buying their books, as placing an order for commercial goods =/= placing a membership application.

+ If it's worth anything at all, even the modern-day Norroena Society acknowledges on their website that Anderson's original was fictitious.

Happy to make the necessary edits myself in due course. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As long as you're able to find a reliable source (see WP:RS) to support the changes, go for it. But the modern-day Norroena Society may not qualify as reliable in this case. Beneathtimp (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For clarity: My reliable source is Haugen, who met Anderson and wrote a critical account of his life and works including a bibliography. I only mentioned the modern society in passing, I understand they are not a reliable source and I'm not relying on them as an editor.
 * Second, I argue the Kentucky Historical Society source is unreliable when it disagrees with Haugen. Reading their short article through, you find they're writing a biased review in which they call the Norroena Library the best book since the Bible (seriously). They have no authority to state facts about the major historical figure Oscar II that are found nowhere else in the historical record. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The other source I'm contesting is the American Register that is cited. In the Google snippet view I've found, it calls the society a "publishing society". We should believe Haugen when he states the society did not exist outside of being a publishing house. It had no "members", only employees (editors) and customers (readers). TelepathicTwelve (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just made the changes and reliably sourced them all. There is no reliable evidence supporting that a "real society" ever existed, in contrast two sources I've given (Professor Haugen and separately Professor Wawn) convincingly argue to the contrary.
 * The mention of the modern Norroena Society might prove controversial, feel free to delete, I've no horse in that race. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)